Circular logic? I say a thing hasn't happened because demand used to be less than supply... demand increased radically... supply did not increase...
And to this you tell me there is a law that says by law that the demand must be controlled so that it is within the bounds of supply.
To this I respond well that clearly couldn't have been enforced because the demand exceeded the supply.
To this you respond circular logic.
This is false.
The basis of my argument is that the supply was X and the demand was Y... and over time the demand went to 2*X and the supply remained at Y.
Thus my argument is not circular.
To the contrary, your argument is circular. Mine is based on the reality of what actually happened.
I don't doubt that there is a law that says they were barred from doing what they did.
I merely point out that it was not enforced because the demand remained unchecked as evidenced by its relationship to supply.
So no... you can take you presumption of questioning my logic and jam it up your ass sideways. My argument was logically bullet proof. https://youtu.be/8WZ0XSf23rs?t...
As to my solution and your rebuttal... it should be taken as granted that if I say a law should be in force that its enforcement is implied. Therefore citing non-enforced laws as a rebuttal is not valid.
As to my fevered imagination, you took my comment out of context because I defined my argument. You're another of those sad people on the internet that like to pull conclusions out of context and then question them ignoring that they were supported by previous material.
*yawn* Where do you muppets come from? Who peed in your genepool? Just astounding.
... Wait, you think I"m an Amazon insider? The only time Amazon ever gave me money was when I got refunds for defective products.
What is with all the stupid shitheads that always assume that anyone that defends a corporation must be paid off by the corporation to do so?
You presume the corps are always wrong? If not, then defending them when spurious arguments are made against them is just intellectual integrity.
So we'll blow through our bandwidth in 30 seconds?
on
The Promise of 5G
·
· Score: 0
Bandwidth caps are so low and prices for bandwidth are so high that even 4G isn't really practical. what are you doing with it?
Most people have bandwidth caps around 2 GBs to 10 GBs.
I'm over wireless anywhere internet provided by the cellphone companies. Its bullshit.
I'm looking forward to google's new project where they only bill you for bandwidth used and they'll bill your bandwidth in a flat way. So the first megabyte costs as much as the last megabyte. The concept will be to run most traffic through wifi bypassing the cell towers entirely.
I heard it described as text messages will be free, wifi calling will be free. And that means... if you were so inclined you could pay NOTHING for your cellphone service. Just answer and make calls in wifi hotspots and exchange text messages otherwise.
I've got my cellphone bill down to about 18 dollars. It would be pretty sweet if I could bring it down to 0... or maybe a couple bucks to account for the few calls I make/receive outside of hotspots... which is basically never. I spend most of my time in one hotspot or another.
If the law you cited were de facto relevant than the water issue would not be an issue.
As to brownouts, I agree that was mostly due to the botched deregulation scheme. However, if you think the government wasn't primarily responsible for the cock up then you don't know anything about it.
As to people just crowding into existing housing... in violation of fire codes? I thought all you said we had to do was pass a law and the problem would go away?
People can't crowd into housing like that because it violates the fire codes.
If they're doing it anyway than that means the laws are not being enforced... which is of course obvious in general. Which means your citation of the law at the start was meaningless because it isn't enforced.
As to your insult at the end, you contradicted yourself in your own post and YOU personally were too stupid to realize it.
As to corruption, sure... but the point I'm making is that the entire job is mostly an anachronism.
If I am a head of state, and I have just run of the mill stuff to conduct with the US state department then I don't care who I'm talking to. I'm filing paper work. I don't care who they are. It could be no one. I could email it to the US state department. What the fuck do I care.
if its something more serious then I also do not want to talk to the ambassador because what the fuck is he going to do for me? He has no power to negotiate on behalf of his country. He can't send in the marines or impose sanctions or change trade policy. he's f'ing useless to me. At best he's an errand boy for the state department and in the 21st century we don't need such people. I can correspond directly with the US state department in REAL TIME in Washington DC if something is getting out of control.
So where would I have diplomats?
I'd have them in Security Council countries where the Ambassadors would be tasked with working something out on the ground that needed to be handled in person in that country. And for those roles I'm only sending people that know what they're doing. that might mean I could still send a campaign donor... if they're smart, have connections, know how to handle themselves, and are loyal... what's the problem?
Then I might send ambassadors to countries where we have issues that need to be resolved. Cuba got an ambassador recently and that's okay. That sort of thing.
But am I going to have an ambassador to the Bahamas? No. About 95 percent of the countries in the world would not get one UNLESS the ambassador in question accepted NO pay for the work and handled all non-sanctioned expenses.
So if you want to be CALLED the ambassador to wherever, pay your own wine tab, pay your own rent, and draw no pay... Fine. I'm cool with that. I'll even given you limited security clearance and numbers you can call in the state department. And if the shit does hit the fan, I'll back you up with the marines etc. BUT... if the shit doesn't hit the fan... your quality of service will be measured by how little you bother the government with your nonsense.
its an overblown position in this day and age. Before instant global communication and global air travel it made some sense to have people there simply to remind the locals as to what US policy would be so they didn't come to erroneous assumptions. But today? If you want to talk to the US... pick up the phone. I'd give every government on earth a special phone number they could call along with an authentication code so we knew it wasn't some random cold call getting through to an unlisted number. And they can just tell us what their concern is... if they want... we can video conference.
No goofy building to maintain. No marine detachment guarding documents that properly shouldn't be within the borders of those countries at all in any capacity. No potential hostages.
The stupidity of the Benghazi situation on top of everything else... and it was all stupid... but the dumbest part was that we even had an embassy there. Why? What was that going to accomplish?
Here you might say "but we might want US diplomats to engage with failed states so we can nudge the regime into a direction we find more agreeable"... okay... but the CIA is clearly a better idea if that's your objective. I don't want to send bed wetting diplomats into a war zone. I'm going to send some 007s in to do what we want done. When things calm down and are less crazy you can have diplomats again... but then the locals and pick the fucking phone up again and just call. Thus the diplomats never actually need to go anywhere on a long term basis and certainly not in that capacity.
The US is too exposed in too many places. Our embassies are getting attacked all over the world and especially in places where we shouldn't even have one. If my embassy is actually under any kind of real on going threat in any country... unless it is a security council country, I'm
Ambassadorships are sort of an anachronism at this point in many cases as well.
The two sides of the typical argument are this:
Side 1: I should be an ambassador because I helped get the president elected and he knows who I am so if I say X to him in the coming years he'll take me seriously.
Side 2: I should be an ambassador because I've been a diplomat all my life and know how to the state department works.
What they rarely point out is that neither side tends to speak the local language or know anything about the local country. There are people that do in the state department but because they spent all their time in another country and learning something they don't have the political connections to earn an ambassadorship.
So right off the bat, if you said "I'd require that the ambassador actually speak the local language"... I'd find that more credible. But no one is doing that. So frankly putting some fancy business people in there makes some sense. Part of it is a matter of status. If you're talking to high status members of a country they are only going to want to talk to high status people in your society. The funders are high status.
But here is something else we can say... my argument... argument 3...
Side 3: its the 21st century and you all have diplomats at the UN. So why am I bothering to have embassies everywhere? I'd downgrade MOST embassies to consulates. I don't need a big building or a bunch of fancy people. The only reason I'd even have a consulate would be to assist Americans that might need US government help in a foreign country. If country X wants to talk to the US,they can pick up the phone or tell one of their diplomats in the UN to say something.
If its serious, then the local ambassador isn't going to be used anyway. The Secretary of state will get on an "airplane" and travel to country X... be there in a day... and we can talk about whatever had to be talked about face to face.
Maybe I'm missing something... I just don't see the point of the ambassadors in MOST countries. Not all. Some countries I can see the need. Security council countries should have ambassadors as well as any country where we're trying to change things or accomplish something. But that isn't true of literally every country. And I think more than a few of these ambassadorships are nothing more than cushy jobs for someone. Who that is doesn't really matter because either way the US government doesn't actually need them there and all they're doing is living in a nice house, with servants, and free food on our dime.
I'd dump the practice in any country where something serious wasn't happening.
not as astonishing as your belief you can contradict me without so much a rebutting argument. I pointed out the discongruity in the numbers and you respond "well you're stupid"...
As to the reviews being done for free... that includes the university not being paid?
Here's the sticking point... 38 percent profit margin.
Where is the 62 percent going? Your move.
As to it being le hard to write better structured papers, we're not talking about skill or time being put into that but changing the format of the papers to take advantage of the internet age. I talked about hyperlinks and not writing the whole paper like it was literally going to be printed out on paper.
I also pointed out that you could include your data in the paper. Sometimes that's unreasonable if you're talking about terabytes or whatever of data. But in most cases it isn't that extreme.
As to paranoia... I got that general comment from a few people already in this thread so its not paranoia if it actually happens.
I'll refrain from throwing in an insult here even though you earned one.
You're the second person to make the same mistake... I'll repeat myself as well then:
Didn't say they were wrong.
What you did was equivalent to this:
ME: 1+1=2 YOU: Bananas are yellow
We're not talking about the same thing.
"" The law of non-contradiction
The law of non-contradiction (alternately the 'law of contradiction'[4]): 'Nothing can both be and not be.'[2]
In other words: "two or more contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time": NOT(A & NOT-A).
In the words of Aristotle, that "one cannot say of something that it is and that it is not in the same respect and at the same time". As an illustration of this law, he wrote:
It is impossible, then, that "being a man" should mean precisely not being a man, if "man" not only signifies something about one subject but also has one significance... And it will not be possible to be and not to be the same thing, except in virtue of an ambiguity, just as if one whom we call "man", and others were to call "not-man"; but the point in question is not this, whether the same thing can at the same time be and not be a man in name, but whether it can be in fact.
Ã"Aristotle, Metaphysics, Book IV, Part 4 (translated by W.D. Ross)[3] ""
Logic.
I did not say that the NYT is not well respected. I questioned the justification for that respect not its fact. I did not say that it was not well researched. I questioned the impartiality of that research, the breath of it, and the contextual relevance of it. I did not say that they do not issue retractions. I said that they edit existing articles without noting that on their website or the article in question and that they do not provide a history for articles so that people can see the past versions of the same article.
You realize there is a difference between being misleading and lying, correct? I am accusing them of the latter. I am also accusing them of playing little psychological games with their readship by both making emotionally laden arguments to distort the argument and beg the question... while at the same time gaslighting the readership by ret-conning the discussion. This permits goal post moving and other assorted perversions of intellectual integrity.
To this you say "where did they lie"... that's not my argument. I could as easily respond with "Where is my jacket?" https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Wait wait, you're saying the big cost is getting the paper listed in indexes? That's like saying the big cost on the internet is DNS servers.
I'm going to repeat again here... Big journals are saying they have a profit margin of 38 percent. That means that 62 percent of their revenue goes to expenses.
Where is that 62 going?
We were also hearing that open journals that don't charge people that read the journal are charging the people that submit the journals 3000 dollars per submission.
Why does it cost the open journal 3000 dollars?... or if you prefer... 2000 dollars with 1000 being profit?
Problems are not merely matters of money. We spend huge sums on cancer research. Saying we don't have a cure because we didn't spend enough on it is unsupportable.
As to problems in other countries, we're not electing a president of the WORLD we're electing a president of the United States. This evangelical notion that you're going to save the world by spreading your vision for how people to live is how we got into trouble in Iraq. Just stop.
As to nerds solving the world's problems... then you don't understand the problems. Most of the issues with disease and starvation are caused by political instability. The people in the area WOULD take care of themselves if they weren't being forced into war at 12 or gang raped or the farmers weren't being killed every time they tried to actually plant some crops. It sounds like you're mostly talking about africa. We can't do that unless you appreciate the problem in africa which is not malaria, illiteracy, or hunger. Those are all symptoms for the cause which is political instability which leads to poverty. Here you'll say "well lets give them money so they're not poor"... that's not how it works. They need to earn it. And the only way they're going to earn it is if the economy can function and that can't happen without political stability.
It is the instability that kills.
As to my children dying of cancer... its cute that you think you can solve all medical problems in a single generation just by throwing money at a problem.
Let me take a stab in the dark... you know nothing about medicine do you? So... you argue in favor of nerd issues but you actually don't come from a position of knowledge on this issue.
1. do not conflate "nice sports car" with "fucking anything with four wheels and some kind of motor".
When I say that there are resource limitations that mean we cannot... CANNOT build 5 billion sports cars. I am not saying "any kind of conveyance what so ever".
I'm not quibbling over the point with you. The issue is that because of infrastructure, labor, and resource limitations there are finite limits to how much of any thing that can be produced at any given time. If you wanted 5 billion sports cars in 1 year's time... we could not produce them no matter how much money you threw at it. And if you tried... the global economy would eat itself... and not only would we not have those cars but people would be starving to death.
2. As to status symbols and class... it really is irrelevant to my point which is that X cannot be produced in Y quantity.
3. As to your citation of hobby jet engines to presume to contradict my obvious point... this is the point in the discussion where I spit in your face. *Spit* Are you serious?
When I referred to jet engines I was obviously referring to something capable of moving an actual airplane... not a fucking model or something but one that real people... not zoolander people (from the Derek Zoolander School for Kids that can't read good)... they're the size of ants! https://youtu.be/NQ-8IuUkJJc?t...
Point is... you're being a jackass for presuming to call that a contradiction. And even if that were acceptable and it isn't... you're still not building 5 billion of the fucking things.
4. As to externalities (The catch all term for stuff that can't be quantified and is arbitrarily made up on the spot to support a position), I'm not excluding them at all. I'm just not letting you arbitrarily decide what is and is not relevant. You don't have that right. The market decides what it considers something costs and you can't contradict it with your opinions. If you want to insert something that has to be added to the cost calculations... and please make it somewhat relevant to bandwidth in Cuba... then let us hear what needs to be considered. I'd really like to know. If you cite CO2... I will nail gun your cat to your garage door. Cite something else please. The CO2 thing has grown tedious.
5. As to democracies of dollars not being like normal democracies... that's probably why I used a different term.
You think?
6. Ah... here we are. This is why you're making these little petty snipes. You're upset that I pissed on Marx's grave. Tough.
As to your dreams of the revolution etc... you people never learn. Do you ever get tired of being wrong? What have you clowns accurately predicted with your world view? If the communists have such a perfect vision of the future then why do they keep getting raped by reality?
As to some non-democrat groups doing things that will lead to the end of all things good... including puppies and sunshine... Sure.
Tell me, how is Detroit doing? That was your great experiment, shithead. You killed it. Which is generally what people like you do to everything you touch. Show me your great success. I'd love to see it. Something you didn't accomplish without parasiting off the bad evil people you hate so much... but which you cannot live without. Your entire ideology is like the entitled unemployed hipster child that constantly whines to his father about how his father doesn't understand or is evil or something. While of course never failing to eat at his father's table.
Go live in the wilderness and build your own society from scratch. I won't trouble you there. But that's the last I want to hear from your rot.
7. As to people having nothing to look forward to but flipping burgers... no you don't even have that: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
As to the people... you're threatening me with violence.:-)
I don't want a nerd president because we don't have a country of nerds that only have nerd problems.
What you're describing to me is cabinet level stuff. Building a platform on nerd issues is going no where.
First off, most voters shift older. So you're not going to get the votes right there.
Second, the various constituencies you need to satisfy on EITHER side are very marginally interested in nerd issues.
Third, if the point of him is to inject ideas into the campaign and get candidates to take positions on issues, then he's fine. But that then is his point... not to actually get any votes.
Fourth, he was hardly alone in pushing for more sensible patients and copyrights. LOTS of people argue for that. Any of them running for president? I think a couple of them actually have taken positions on it already on both political sides.
Fifth, I'm not quibbling about the crowd funding issue... I'm outright denying it and laughing at the assertion. There's nothing innovative or unique about that. Lots of candidacies have not had the support of big donors. True... you rarely win unless you have that support... but then Larry isn't winning so the pattern holds.
Can you tell me why I should take Larry seriously here? Because he's basically looking like the Rand Paul of the left to me. Neither one of them is getting to sit in the big chair. So I don't really care.
Again, he's probably an interesting pick for the cabinet.
The cost comment was in reference to the complaint that OPEN journals cost upwards of 3000 dollars to get a single paper published.
My suggestion was to see if there was a way to reduce the costs of publication while maintaining the rightful auditing procedures that peer review should provide.
As to the notion that the scientists are not being paid to audit the papers, then why do the paid journals only have a profit margin of 38 percent?
If I'm getting the papers for free, people are auditing the papers for free, my cost structure is a website, and people are paying me 20k for a subscription to access the journals... then why is my profit margin so low?
The profit margin if what you're saying is true should be closer to 97~99 percent basically meaning the journal has a small staff that matches X scientists with Y papers... and then whatever the web hosting costs which in any of these businesses is basically nothing.
So when I see a profit margin of 38 percent... which is very good... but not 99 percent which what you'd require for that model... it means they're paying someone a certain amount PER publication. Money is going somewhere PER publication. And without looking into it any more than that, this suggests that either the scientists are getting paid or the university is getting paid on their behalf for their contribution. You're not going to get a profit margin that low on something where you pay nothing for the paper, nothing for the review, and effectively nothing for the hosting WHILE collecting tens of thousands of dollars from universities, corporations, and media outlets all over the world to obtain access to the material.
Do you think Bernie is raking in the big money from the shadowy corporate overlords?
And if that's your basis of voting for the guy, you might as well vote for Rick Perry... so few people are giving him money that i think he's not paying his staff at this point.
So... I'd need a more compelling reason to vote for the guy.
I watched his Ted talk after reading this article so I could get a better idea of who he was... and he basically gave an entertaining whine on the whole citizen's united thing... which immediately flagged him as a con man or an idiot.
I'll go into the whichness of the why on that if you're curious, but suffice to say that banning people from participating in political speech is going to have unintended consequences... which are completely obvious to anyone that actually thinks about it for more than 2 seconds.
Obviously you need a scientist to go over your work but I think they might lower the costs if they can make the papers easier to read or potentially release them as a series.
This sounds like complete heresy but consider the economic and logistical advantages.
By releasing something in a more intelligible format even experts will be able to review it faster and more confidently. Keep in mind that we're not exchanging dead trees with each other and there's no reason why a "paper" has to be formatted like it is written on paper. Hyperlinks for example are almost never in these studies which is too bad because they're a superior form of notation. You see this in wikipedia articles where they'll put a hyperlinked number after a statement to reference its source. Beyond that, you are not restricted to a notion. You could have the hyper link literally take you to the specific portion of the paper being referenced. Directly. No need to actually be familiar with it previously. You could also separate the data out in a raw format and include it with the algorithms used to process it in the "paper" itself. This is not practical on literal paper that you're literally publishing. But in a computer journal it is elementary. Formating the papers differently and possibly breaking that process down into specialties could really help. So Dave just examines the validity of raw data. That's all he does in any paper. Then you have Tom and he just looks at the statistical algorithms and various other mathematical models used to process things. Just the math. Then you have Eric that handles external citations and go through the claims made and the references they're citing and that's all he does for any paper. And then all those people pool their findings on that and the combination is handed off to Adam who will read the abstract, the conclusion, the comments by the people that verified or found issues with the paper, and he then decides to pass or fail the paper through peer review on that basis. And ideally all of this information would be published along with the paper itself so that other people reading the paper could see what the peer review board looked at, caught, missed, etc. But the idea is you break it down into simpler jobs and then audit the bits individually by experts that only do that.
And if that is still creating sticker shock when it comes time to publish, consider taking a big paper and turning it into a lot of little ones that can be audited more quickly individually and possibly will collectively have a smaller sticker price simply because it isn't some giant daunting monster.
Just my 2 cents from the peanut gallery. Cue the horde of people that will stick their noses straight in the air and say "who are you to have an opinion"... a comment that never stops being funny because the implication of the question is fallacious. Which undermines the scholastic weight of the person saying such a thing because if they were anyone they'd be smart enough not to ask such a stupid question.
Who am I? No one. I'm a naked man that sleeps in a rain barrel and begs for food (the educated will get the reference). Doesn't make me wrong.
The job market being what it is... its a buyer's market when it comes to labor. People are crossing national lines for the Amazon job because they value it as better than their opportunities where they are.
The article isn't hurting Amazon. People will be knocking their doors down to hire them at those job fairs.
And do you really think the NYTs is talking to the potential recruits of Amazon? Really? Have you seen the demographics on the NYTs? Their average reader is like 65 at this point... and tending older in the stats every year. And that stat would be even worse only a fair number of their readers die of old age every year which is shown in the circulation data of the paper.
So not only do I reject the notion that the NYT is likely to change anything for Amazon, I also question the notion that the NYT is even speaking to that audience.
And beyond that, doesn't Bezos own a competing paper for the national attention these days?
Its the 21st century... we need to think about these things in a more sophisticated way than previous generations. Step back and see the lines of force.
I hate the mid level. I want it on or off. Just me. I don't see how it helps me for the phone to know roughly where I am? What does that do for me besides waste my battery power and assist snooping apps that have no business knowing that information?
... "crowd funding" in politics is ancient. And I'd point out that most crowdfunding systems have no problem with rich donors. Go to kickstarter... scroll down... they've got prizes for people that give 10k. Generally involves people going to some stupid party with the developer or them inserting you into their work or something.
There's nothing new about Larry's campaign. Guy that founded Wikipedia likes him? Okay... that's interesting sort of... but the crowdfunding argument? I'm not such a low information voter that that doesn't pass the smell test.
hey bingo, I'll admit that I responded to a sockpuppet troll AC if you'll admit that you are a sockpuppet troll AC.
And you admit that my change in policy has shut you out of serious discussions with me since I implemented it.
Do that and I'll admit to going back on what I said I would do.
As to carrying on with any serious discussion... you are conflating answering you at all with anything with actually engaging with you in a substantive way.
If you don't log in... the instant I detect YOU. And there are not dozens of you. Its at most two of you but probably just you... Bingo... Bingo the clowno. And if you don't login to your actual account... then all you're going to get out of me is discussions about ACs, Trolls, Sockpuppets, and other things that have to bore you at this point as much as they bore me.
You're an idiot, bingo. You're stupid, you're poorly informed on anything you've bothered to expound upon, you're not funny, you're not creative, and you're not interesting.
What you are is persistent and irritating. That's all you've got going for yourself. And what kills you is that you're dealing with someone that is far more stubborn than any troll yet born. You can't troll me off this site, bingo. Nothing you say actually matters to me. You're just this sad creature that thinks he can get somewhere by acting like a moron.
All that will ever get out of me is that I will call you a moron. You don't intimidate me. You don't scare me. You don't impress me. All you are is annoying... and pathetic because you don't realize it.
The Greeks were fine with their debt until the Germans came to collect.
The American colonies were fine until they rebelled.
The situation with the housing market and banks was fine until it wasn't.
So saying "Cali hasn't imploded yet" is not the same thing as saying they're fine.
As to the economic arguments... the bullshit on the economic statistics is well understood at this point and basically everyone knows they're full of shit besides the willfully ignorant. So we'll just skip over that.
On the issue of the drought, the issue is that they have not linked GROWTH with infrastructure. This is why we get brown outs, over crowded schools, over worked police departments, water shortages, and hellacious traffic.
Anyone ever play sim city back in the day? It was a game of balancing things that increased your resources with things that were needed to supply the things that produced your resources. It was about managing land, tax revenue, water, power, schools, police.
Okay... so what happens if you just build lots of houses and don't build power plants, don't build water aqueducts/reservoirs/treatment plants/desalinization plants, schools, hospitals, police stations, or transport?
That's basically what happened in california. They okayed development project after development project... EVERYWHERE... and in no sense linked that to infrastructure.
So radically increasing the population did not correspond to an increase in water resources.
What is the solution? Link the two.
Say "zoning for new housing/business/etc must not exceed literal construction and activation of relevant resources required to sustain that development."
So if you want to build housing for another million people, then I want to see somewhere in there that you've expanded water and power resources for an additional million people. And if it isn't on line... NOW... then I'm not zoning land for use by another million people.
Now here someone is going to say something profoundly stupid like "well where are they going to go!?"... well... anywhere. Arizona, Texas, Montana... it doesn't really matter. There are plenty of places for people to go. And if you want those new developments THAT badly... then build the fucking power plants and reservoirs and aqueducts and schools and highways and police stations... Or go fuck yourself. Saying "we don't have the money to do X or Y or Z right now"... fine... then when you do we can build the infrastructure and then you can have your development. But if you don't have it, then you can't built the infrastructure and you can't have the development.
Suggesting otherwise is somewhere between short term exploitative thinking where someone does things that are against the long term interests of the state for short term profit... and childishness/ignorance.
The developers and politicians are mostly liars or too self interested to care what happens. And the public mostly is just too stupid to know what is going on.
The law of non-contradiction (alternately the 'law of contradiction'[4]): 'Nothing can both be and not be.'[2]
In other words: "two or more contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time": NOT(A & NOT-A).
In the words of Aristotle, that "one cannot say of something that it is and that it is not in the same respect and at the same time". As an illustration of this law, he wrote:
It is impossible, then, that "being a man" should mean precisely not being a man, if "man" not only signifies something about one subject but also has one significance... And it will not be possible to be and not to be the same thing, except in virtue of an ambiguity, just as if one whom we call "man", and others were to call "not-man"; but the point in question is not this, whether the same thing can at the same time be and not be a man in name, but whether it can be in fact.
â"Aristotle, Metaphysics, Book IV, Part 4 (translated by W.D. Ross)[3] ""
Logic.
I did not say that the NYT is not well respected. I questioned the justification for that respect not its fact. I did not say that it was not well researched. I questioned the impartiality of that research, the breath of it, and the contextual relevance of it. I did not say that they do not issue retractions. I said that they edit existing articles without noting that on their website or the article in question and that they do not provide a history for articles so that people can see the past versions of the same article.
You realize there is a difference between being misleading and lying, correct? I am accusing them of the latter. I am also accusing them of playing little psychological games with their readship by both making emotionally laden arguments to distort the argument and beg the question... while at the same time gaslighting the readership by ret-conning the discussion. This permits goal post moving and other assorted perversions of intellectual integrity.
To this you say "where did they lie"... that's not my argument. I could as easily respond with "Where is my jacket?" https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Slashdot Mirror
Circular logic? I say a thing hasn't happened because demand used to be less than supply... demand increased radically... supply did not increase...
And to this you tell me there is a law that says by law that the demand must be controlled so that it is within the bounds of supply.
To this I respond well that clearly couldn't have been enforced because the demand exceeded the supply.
To this you respond circular logic.
This is false.
The basis of my argument is that the supply was X and the demand was Y... and over time the demand went to 2*X and the supply remained at Y.
Thus my argument is not circular.
To the contrary, your argument is circular. Mine is based on the reality of what actually happened.
I don't doubt that there is a law that says they were barred from doing what they did.
I merely point out that it was not enforced because the demand remained unchecked as evidenced by its relationship to supply.
So no... you can take you presumption of questioning my logic and jam it up your ass sideways. My argument was logically bullet proof.
https://youtu.be/8WZ0XSf23rs?t...
As to my solution and your rebuttal... it should be taken as granted that if I say a law should be in force that its enforcement is implied. Therefore citing non-enforced laws as a rebuttal is not valid.
As to my fevered imagination, you took my comment out of context because I defined my argument. You're another of those sad people on the internet that like to pull conclusions out of context and then question them ignoring that they were supported by previous material.
*yawn* Where do you muppets come from? Who peed in your genepool? Just astounding.
... Wait, you think I"m an Amazon insider? The only time Amazon ever gave me money was when I got refunds for defective products.
What is with all the stupid shitheads that always assume that anyone that defends a corporation must be paid off by the corporation to do so?
You presume the corps are always wrong? If not, then defending them when spurious arguments are made against them is just intellectual integrity.
Bandwidth caps are so low and prices for bandwidth are so high that even 4G isn't really practical. what are you doing with it?
Most people have bandwidth caps around 2 GBs to 10 GBs.
I'm over wireless anywhere internet provided by the cellphone companies. Its bullshit.
I'm looking forward to google's new project where they only bill you for bandwidth used and they'll bill your bandwidth in a flat way. So the first megabyte costs as much as the last megabyte. The concept will be to run most traffic through wifi bypassing the cell towers entirely.
I heard it described as text messages will be free, wifi calling will be free. And that means... if you were so inclined you could pay NOTHING for your cellphone service. Just answer and make calls in wifi hotspots and exchange text messages otherwise.
I've got my cellphone bill down to about 18 dollars. It would be pretty sweet if I could bring it down to 0... or maybe a couple bucks to account for the few calls I make/receive outside of hotspots... which is basically never. I spend most of my time in one hotspot or another.
If the law you cited were de facto relevant than the water issue would not be an issue.
As to brownouts, I agree that was mostly due to the botched deregulation scheme. However, if you think the government wasn't primarily responsible for the cock up then you don't know anything about it.
As to people just crowding into existing housing... in violation of fire codes? I thought all you said we had to do was pass a law and the problem would go away?
People can't crowd into housing like that because it violates the fire codes.
If they're doing it anyway than that means the laws are not being enforced... which is of course obvious in general. Which means your citation of the law at the start was meaningless because it isn't enforced.
As to your insult at the end, you contradicted yourself in your own post and YOU personally were too stupid to realize it.
You're the dummy. Not me, chump.
As to corruption, sure... but the point I'm making is that the entire job is mostly an anachronism.
If I am a head of state, and I have just run of the mill stuff to conduct with the US state department then I don't care who I'm talking to. I'm filing paper work. I don't care who they are. It could be no one. I could email it to the US state department. What the fuck do I care.
if its something more serious then I also do not want to talk to the ambassador because what the fuck is he going to do for me? He has no power to negotiate on behalf of his country. He can't send in the marines or impose sanctions or change trade policy. he's f'ing useless to me. At best he's an errand boy for the state department and in the 21st century we don't need such people. I can correspond directly with the US state department in REAL TIME in Washington DC if something is getting out of control.
So where would I have diplomats?
I'd have them in Security Council countries where the Ambassadors would be tasked with working something out on the ground that needed to be handled in person in that country. And for those roles I'm only sending people that know what they're doing. that might mean I could still send a campaign donor... if they're smart, have connections, know how to handle themselves, and are loyal... what's the problem?
Then I might send ambassadors to countries where we have issues that need to be resolved. Cuba got an ambassador recently and that's okay. That sort of thing.
But am I going to have an ambassador to the Bahamas? No. About 95 percent of the countries in the world would not get one UNLESS the ambassador in question accepted NO pay for the work and handled all non-sanctioned expenses.
So if you want to be CALLED the ambassador to wherever, pay your own wine tab, pay your own rent, and draw no pay... Fine. I'm cool with that. I'll even given you limited security clearance and numbers you can call in the state department. And if the shit does hit the fan, I'll back you up with the marines etc. BUT... if the shit doesn't hit the fan... your quality of service will be measured by how little you bother the government with your nonsense.
its an overblown position in this day and age. Before instant global communication and global air travel it made some sense to have people there simply to remind the locals as to what US policy would be so they didn't come to erroneous assumptions. But today? If you want to talk to the US... pick up the phone. I'd give every government on earth a special phone number they could call along with an authentication code so we knew it wasn't some random cold call getting through to an unlisted number. And they can just tell us what their concern is... if they want... we can video conference.
No goofy building to maintain. No marine detachment guarding documents that properly shouldn't be within the borders of those countries at all in any capacity. No potential hostages.
The stupidity of the Benghazi situation on top of everything else... and it was all stupid... but the dumbest part was that we even had an embassy there. Why? What was that going to accomplish?
Here you might say "but we might want US diplomats to engage with failed states so we can nudge the regime into a direction we find more agreeable"... okay... but the CIA is clearly a better idea if that's your objective. I don't want to send bed wetting diplomats into a war zone. I'm going to send some 007s in to do what we want done. When things calm down and are less crazy you can have diplomats again... but then the locals and pick the fucking phone up again and just call. Thus the diplomats never actually need to go anywhere on a long term basis and certainly not in that capacity.
The US is too exposed in too many places. Our embassies are getting attacked all over the world and especially in places where we shouldn't even have one. If my embassy is actually under any kind of real on going threat in any country... unless it is a security council country, I'm
As to Detroit being a communist state, so you're saying you don't associate socialism with communism?
Because Marx did.
It wasn't the first time that happened.
Ambassadorships are sort of an anachronism at this point in many cases as well.
The two sides of the typical argument are this:
Side 1: I should be an ambassador because I helped get the president elected and he knows who I am so if I say X to him in the coming years he'll take me seriously.
Side 2: I should be an ambassador because I've been a diplomat all my life and know how to the state department works.
What they rarely point out is that neither side tends to speak the local language or know anything about the local country. There are people that do in the state department but because they spent all their time in another country and learning something they don't have the political connections to earn an ambassadorship.
So right off the bat, if you said "I'd require that the ambassador actually speak the local language"... I'd find that more credible. But no one is doing that. So frankly putting some fancy business people in there makes some sense. Part of it is a matter of status. If you're talking to high status members of a country they are only going to want to talk to high status people in your society. The funders are high status.
But here is something else we can say... my argument... argument 3...
Side 3: its the 21st century and you all have diplomats at the UN. So why am I bothering to have embassies everywhere? I'd downgrade MOST embassies to consulates. I don't need a big building or a bunch of fancy people. The only reason I'd even have a consulate would be to assist Americans that might need US government help in a foreign country. If country X wants to talk to the US,they can pick up the phone or tell one of their diplomats in the UN to say something.
If its serious, then the local ambassador isn't going to be used anyway. The Secretary of state will get on an "airplane" and travel to country X... be there in a day... and we can talk about whatever had to be talked about face to face.
Maybe I'm missing something... I just don't see the point of the ambassadors in MOST countries. Not all. Some countries I can see the need. Security council countries should have ambassadors as well as any country where we're trying to change things or accomplish something. But that isn't true of literally every country. And I think more than a few of these ambassadorships are nothing more than cushy jobs for someone. Who that is doesn't really matter because either way the US government doesn't actually need them there and all they're doing is living in a nice house, with servants, and free food on our dime.
I'd dump the practice in any country where something serious wasn't happening.
If the cost is a couple hundred dollars than there is no problem. That's a sustainable cost structure.
Mission accomplished. Everyone go home.
*shuts off lights and locks the doors*
not as astonishing as your belief you can contradict me without so much a rebutting argument. I pointed out the discongruity in the numbers and you respond "well you're stupid"...
Fucking brilliant rebuttal.
*golf clap*
As to the reviews being done for free... that includes the university not being paid?
Here's the sticking point... 38 percent profit margin.
Where is the 62 percent going? Your move.
As to it being le hard to write better structured papers, we're not talking about skill or time being put into that but changing the format of the papers to take advantage of the internet age. I talked about hyperlinks and not writing the whole paper like it was literally going to be printed out on paper.
I also pointed out that you could include your data in the paper. Sometimes that's unreasonable if you're talking about terabytes or whatever of data. But in most cases it isn't that extreme.
As to paranoia... I got that general comment from a few people already in this thread so its not paranoia if it actually happens.
I'll refrain from throwing in an insult here even though you earned one.
You're the second person to make the same mistake... I'll repeat myself as well then:
Didn't say they were wrong.
What you did was equivalent to this:
ME: 1+1=2
YOU: Bananas are yellow
We're not talking about the same thing.
""
The law of non-contradiction
The law of non-contradiction (alternately the 'law of contradiction'[4]): 'Nothing can both be and not be.'[2]
In other words: "two or more contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time": NOT(A & NOT-A).
In the words of Aristotle, that "one cannot say of something that it is and that it is not in the same respect and at the same time". As an illustration of this law, he wrote:
It is impossible, then, that "being a man" should mean precisely not being a man, if "man" not only signifies something about one subject but also has one significance ... And it will not be possible to be and not to be the same thing, except in virtue of an ambiguity, just as if one whom we call "man", and others were to call "not-man"; but the point in question is not this, whether the same thing can at the same time be and not be a man in name, but whether it can be in fact.
Ã"Aristotle, Metaphysics, Book IV, Part 4 (translated by W.D. Ross)[3]
""
Logic.
I did not say that the NYT is not well respected. I questioned the justification for that respect not its fact.
I did not say that it was not well researched. I questioned the impartiality of that research, the breath of it, and the contextual relevance of it.
I did not say that they do not issue retractions. I said that they edit existing articles without noting that on their website or the article in question and that they do not provide a history for articles so that people can see the past versions of the same article.
You realize there is a difference between being misleading and lying, correct? I am accusing them of the latter. I am also accusing them of playing little psychological games with their readship by both making emotionally laden arguments to distort the argument and beg the question... while at the same time gaslighting the readership by ret-conning the discussion. This permits goal post moving and other assorted perversions of intellectual integrity.
To this you say "where did they lie"... that's not my argument. I could as easily respond with "Where is my jacket?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Wait wait, you're saying the big cost is getting the paper listed in indexes? That's like saying the big cost on the internet is DNS servers.
I'm going to repeat again here... Big journals are saying they have a profit margin of 38 percent. That means that 62 percent of their revenue goes to expenses.
Where is that 62 going?
We were also hearing that open journals that don't charge people that read the journal are charging the people that submit the journals 3000 dollars per submission.
Why does it cost the open journal 3000 dollars?... or if you prefer... 2000 dollars with 1000 being profit?
Problems are not merely matters of money. We spend huge sums on cancer research. Saying we don't have a cure because we didn't spend enough on it is unsupportable.
As to problems in other countries, we're not electing a president of the WORLD we're electing a president of the United States. This evangelical notion that you're going to save the world by spreading your vision for how people to live is how we got into trouble in Iraq. Just stop.
As to nerds solving the world's problems... then you don't understand the problems. Most of the issues with disease and starvation are caused by political instability. The people in the area WOULD take care of themselves if they weren't being forced into war at 12 or gang raped or the farmers weren't being killed every time they tried to actually plant some crops. It sounds like you're mostly talking about africa. We can't do that unless you appreciate the problem in africa which is not malaria, illiteracy, or hunger. Those are all symptoms for the cause which is political instability which leads to poverty. Here you'll say "well lets give them money so they're not poor"... that's not how it works. They need to earn it. And the only way they're going to earn it is if the economy can function and that can't happen without political stability.
It is the instability that kills.
As to my children dying of cancer... its cute that you think you can solve all medical problems in a single generation just by throwing money at a problem.
Let me take a stab in the dark... you know nothing about medicine do you? So... you argue in favor of nerd issues but you actually don't come from a position of knowledge on this issue.
the burden of proof is on you... and you need to take them to court if they're being crazy.
Yup.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
1. do not conflate "nice sports car" with "fucking anything with four wheels and some kind of motor".
When I say that there are resource limitations that mean we cannot... CANNOT build 5 billion sports cars. I am not saying "any kind of conveyance what so ever".
I'm not quibbling over the point with you. The issue is that because of infrastructure, labor, and resource limitations there are finite limits to how much of any thing that can be produced at any given time. If you wanted 5 billion sports cars in 1 year's time... we could not produce them no matter how much money you threw at it. And if you tried... the global economy would eat itself... and not only would we not have those cars but people would be starving to death.
2. As to status symbols and class... it really is irrelevant to my point which is that X cannot be produced in Y quantity.
3. As to your citation of hobby jet engines to presume to contradict my obvious point... this is the point in the discussion where I spit in your face. *Spit* Are you serious?
When I referred to jet engines I was obviously referring to something capable of moving an actual airplane... not a fucking model or something but one that real people... not zoolander people (from the Derek Zoolander School for Kids that can't read good)... they're the size of ants!
https://youtu.be/NQ-8IuUkJJc?t...
Point is... you're being a jackass for presuming to call that a contradiction. And even if that were acceptable and it isn't... you're still not building 5 billion of the fucking things.
4. As to externalities (The catch all term for stuff that can't be quantified and is arbitrarily made up on the spot to support a position), I'm not excluding them at all. I'm just not letting you arbitrarily decide what is and is not relevant. You don't have that right. The market decides what it considers something costs and you can't contradict it with your opinions. If you want to insert something that has to be added to the cost calculations... and please make it somewhat relevant to bandwidth in Cuba... then let us hear what needs to be considered. I'd really like to know. If you cite CO2... I will nail gun your cat to your garage door. Cite something else please. The CO2 thing has grown tedious.
5. As to democracies of dollars not being like normal democracies... that's probably why I used a different term.
You think?
6. Ah... here we are. This is why you're making these little petty snipes. You're upset that I pissed on Marx's grave. Tough.
As to your dreams of the revolution etc... you people never learn. Do you ever get tired of being wrong? What have you clowns accurately predicted with your world view? If the communists have such a perfect vision of the future then why do they keep getting raped by reality?
As to some non-democrat groups doing things that will lead to the end of all things good... including puppies and sunshine... Sure.
Tell me, how is Detroit doing? That was your great experiment, shithead. You killed it. Which is generally what people like you do to everything you touch. Show me your great success. I'd love to see it. Something you didn't accomplish without parasiting off the bad evil people you hate so much... but which you cannot live without. Your entire ideology is like the entitled unemployed hipster child that constantly whines to his father about how his father doesn't understand or is evil or something. While of course never failing to eat at his father's table.
Go live in the wilderness and build your own society from scratch. I won't trouble you there. But that's the last I want to hear from your rot.
7. As to people having nothing to look forward to but flipping burgers... no you don't even have that:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
As to the people... you're threatening me with violence. :-)
I literally get hard thinking of you tryin
I don't want a nerd president because we don't have a country of nerds that only have nerd problems.
What you're describing to me is cabinet level stuff. Building a platform on nerd issues is going no where.
First off, most voters shift older. So you're not going to get the votes right there.
Second, the various constituencies you need to satisfy on EITHER side are very marginally interested in nerd issues.
Third, if the point of him is to inject ideas into the campaign and get candidates to take positions on issues, then he's fine. But that then is his point... not to actually get any votes.
Fourth, he was hardly alone in pushing for more sensible patients and copyrights. LOTS of people argue for that. Any of them running for president? I think a couple of them actually have taken positions on it already on both political sides.
Fifth, I'm not quibbling about the crowd funding issue... I'm outright denying it and laughing at the assertion. There's nothing innovative or unique about that. Lots of candidacies have not had the support of big donors. True... you rarely win unless you have that support... but then Larry isn't winning so the pattern holds.
Can you tell me why I should take Larry seriously here? Because he's basically looking like the Rand Paul of the left to me. Neither one of them is getting to sit in the big chair. So I don't really care.
Again, he's probably an interesting pick for the cabinet.
The cost comment was in reference to the complaint that OPEN journals cost upwards of 3000 dollars to get a single paper published.
My suggestion was to see if there was a way to reduce the costs of publication while maintaining the rightful auditing procedures that peer review should provide.
As to the notion that the scientists are not being paid to audit the papers, then why do the paid journals only have a profit margin of 38 percent?
If I'm getting the papers for free, people are auditing the papers for free, my cost structure is a website, and people are paying me 20k for a subscription to access the journals... then why is my profit margin so low?
The profit margin if what you're saying is true should be closer to 97~99 percent basically meaning the journal has a small staff that matches X scientists with Y papers... and then whatever the web hosting costs which in any of these businesses is basically nothing.
So when I see a profit margin of 38 percent... which is very good... but not 99 percent which what you'd require for that model... it means they're paying someone a certain amount PER publication. Money is going somewhere PER publication. And without looking into it any more than that, this suggests that either the scientists are getting paid or the university is getting paid on their behalf for their contribution. You're not going to get a profit margin that low on something where you pay nothing for the paper, nothing for the review, and effectively nothing for the hosting WHILE collecting tens of thousands of dollars from universities, corporations, and media outlets all over the world to obtain access to the material.
He held that out like it was something special.
Do you think Bernie is raking in the big money from the shadowy corporate overlords?
And if that's your basis of voting for the guy, you might as well vote for Rick Perry... so few people are giving him money that i think he's not paying his staff at this point.
So... I'd need a more compelling reason to vote for the guy.
I watched his Ted talk after reading this article so I could get a better idea of who he was... and he basically gave an entertaining whine on the whole citizen's united thing... which immediately flagged him as a con man or an idiot.
I'll go into the whichness of the why on that if you're curious, but suffice to say that banning people from participating in political speech is going to have unintended consequences... which are completely obvious to anyone that actually thinks about it for more than 2 seconds.
So... yeah... not impressed.
Obviously you need a scientist to go over your work but I think they might lower the costs if they can make the papers easier to read or potentially release them as a series.
This sounds like complete heresy but consider the economic and logistical advantages.
By releasing something in a more intelligible format even experts will be able to review it faster and more confidently. Keep in mind that we're not exchanging dead trees with each other and there's no reason why a "paper" has to be formatted like it is written on paper. Hyperlinks for example are almost never in these studies which is too bad because they're a superior form of notation. You see this in wikipedia articles where they'll put a hyperlinked number after a statement to reference its source. Beyond that, you are not restricted to a notion. You could have the hyper link literally take you to the specific portion of the paper being referenced. Directly. No need to actually be familiar with it previously. You could also separate the data out in a raw format and include it with the algorithms used to process it in the "paper" itself. This is not practical on literal paper that you're literally publishing. But in a computer journal it is elementary. Formating the papers differently and possibly breaking that process down into specialties could really help. So Dave just examines the validity of raw data. That's all he does in any paper. Then you have Tom and he just looks at the statistical algorithms and various other mathematical models used to process things. Just the math. Then you have Eric that handles external citations and go through the claims made and the references they're citing and that's all he does for any paper. And then all those people pool their findings on that and the combination is handed off to Adam who will read the abstract, the conclusion, the comments by the people that verified or found issues with the paper, and he then decides to pass or fail the paper through peer review on that basis. And ideally all of this information would be published along with the paper itself so that other people reading the paper could see what the peer review board looked at, caught, missed, etc. But the idea is you break it down into simpler jobs and then audit the bits individually by experts that only do that.
And if that is still creating sticker shock when it comes time to publish, consider taking a big paper and turning it into a lot of little ones that can be audited more quickly individually and possibly will collectively have a smaller sticker price simply because it isn't some giant daunting monster.
Just my 2 cents from the peanut gallery. Cue the horde of people that will stick their noses straight in the air and say "who are you to have an opinion"... a comment that never stops being funny because the implication of the question is fallacious. Which undermines the scholastic weight of the person saying such a thing because if they were anyone they'd be smart enough not to ask such a stupid question.
Who am I? No one. I'm a naked man that sleeps in a rain barrel and begs for food (the educated will get the reference). Doesn't make me wrong.
The job market being what it is... its a buyer's market when it comes to labor. People are crossing national lines for the Amazon job because they value it as better than their opportunities where they are.
The article isn't hurting Amazon. People will be knocking their doors down to hire them at those job fairs.
And do you really think the NYTs is talking to the potential recruits of Amazon? Really? Have you seen the demographics on the NYTs? Their average reader is like 65 at this point... and tending older in the stats every year. And that stat would be even worse only a fair number of their readers die of old age every year which is shown in the circulation data of the paper.
So not only do I reject the notion that the NYT is likely to change anything for Amazon, I also question the notion that the NYT is even speaking to that audience.
And beyond that, doesn't Bezos own a competing paper for the national attention these days?
for all we know this is just a cat fight between the two papers with the NYTs hoping that attacking Amazon will buy them some détente with their rival media outlet.
Its the 21st century... we need to think about these things in a more sophisticated way than previous generations. Step back and see the lines of force.
I hate the mid level. I want it on or off. Just me. I don't see how it helps me for the phone to know roughly where I am? What does that do for me besides waste my battery power and assist snooping apps that have no business knowing that information?
... "crowd funding" in politics is ancient. And I'd point out that most crowdfunding systems have no problem with rich donors. Go to kickstarter... scroll down... they've got prizes for people that give 10k. Generally involves people going to some stupid party with the developer or them inserting you into their work or something.
There's nothing new about Larry's campaign. Guy that founded Wikipedia likes him? Okay... that's interesting sort of... but the crowdfunding argument? I'm not such a low information voter that that doesn't pass the smell test.
hey bingo, I'll admit that I responded to a sockpuppet troll AC if you'll admit that you are a sockpuppet troll AC.
And you admit that my change in policy has shut you out of serious discussions with me since I implemented it.
Do that and I'll admit to going back on what I said I would do.
As to carrying on with any serious discussion... you are conflating answering you at all with anything with actually engaging with you in a substantive way.
If you don't log in... the instant I detect YOU. And there are not dozens of you. Its at most two of you but probably just you... Bingo... Bingo the clowno. And if you don't login to your actual account... then all you're going to get out of me is discussions about ACs, Trolls, Sockpuppets, and other things that have to bore you at this point as much as they bore me.
You're an idiot, bingo. You're stupid, you're poorly informed on anything you've bothered to expound upon, you're not funny, you're not creative, and you're not interesting.
What you are is persistent and irritating. That's all you've got going for yourself. And what kills you is that you're dealing with someone that is far more stubborn than any troll yet born. You can't troll me off this site, bingo. Nothing you say actually matters to me. You're just this sad creature that thinks he can get somewhere by acting like a moron.
All that will ever get out of me is that I will call you a moron. You don't intimidate me. You don't scare me. You don't impress me. All you are is annoying... and pathetic because you don't realize it.
Everything is fine until it isn't.
The Greeks were fine with their debt until the Germans came to collect.
The American colonies were fine until they rebelled.
The situation with the housing market and banks was fine until it wasn't.
So saying "Cali hasn't imploded yet" is not the same thing as saying they're fine.
As to the economic arguments... the bullshit on the economic statistics is well understood at this point and basically everyone knows they're full of shit besides the willfully ignorant. So we'll just skip over that.
On the issue of the drought, the issue is that they have not linked GROWTH with infrastructure. This is why we get brown outs, over crowded schools, over worked police departments, water shortages, and hellacious traffic.
Anyone ever play sim city back in the day? It was a game of balancing things that increased your resources with things that were needed to supply the things that produced your resources. It was about managing land, tax revenue, water, power, schools, police.
Okay... so what happens if you just build lots of houses and don't build power plants, don't build water aqueducts/reservoirs/treatment plants/desalinization plants, schools, hospitals, police stations, or transport?
That's basically what happened in california. They okayed development project after development project... EVERYWHERE... and in no sense linked that to infrastructure.
So radically increasing the population did not correspond to an increase in water resources.
What is the solution? Link the two.
Say "zoning for new housing/business/etc must not exceed literal construction and activation of relevant resources required to sustain that development."
So if you want to build housing for another million people, then I want to see somewhere in there that you've expanded water and power resources for an additional million people. And if it isn't on line... NOW... then I'm not zoning land for use by another million people.
Now here someone is going to say something profoundly stupid like "well where are they going to go!?"... well... anywhere. Arizona, Texas, Montana... it doesn't really matter. There are plenty of places for people to go. And if you want those new developments THAT badly... then build the fucking power plants and reservoirs and aqueducts and schools and highways and police stations... Or go fuck yourself. Saying "we don't have the money to do X or Y or Z right now"... fine... then when you do we can build the infrastructure and then you can have your development. But if you don't have it, then you can't built the infrastructure and you can't have the development.
Suggesting otherwise is somewhere between short term exploitative thinking where someone does things that are against the long term interests of the state for short term profit... and childishness/ignorance.
The developers and politicians are mostly liars or too self interested to care what happens. And the public mostly is just too stupid to know what is going on.
Didn't say they were wrong.
What you did was equivalent to this:
ME: 1+1=2
YOU: Bananas are yellow
We're not talking about the same thing.
""
The law of non-contradiction
The law of non-contradiction (alternately the 'law of contradiction'[4]): 'Nothing can both be and not be.'[2]
In other words: "two or more contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time": NOT(A & NOT-A).
In the words of Aristotle, that "one cannot say of something that it is and that it is not in the same respect and at the same time". As an illustration of this law, he wrote:
It is impossible, then, that "being a man" should mean precisely not being a man, if "man" not only signifies something about one subject but also has one significance ... And it will not be possible to be and not to be the same thing, except in virtue of an ambiguity, just as if one whom we call "man", and others were to call "not-man"; but the point in question is not this, whether the same thing can at the same time be and not be a man in name, but whether it can be in fact.
â"Aristotle, Metaphysics, Book IV, Part 4 (translated by W.D. Ross)[3]
""
Logic.
I did not say that the NYT is not well respected. I questioned the justification for that respect not its fact.
I did not say that it was not well researched. I questioned the impartiality of that research, the breath of it, and the contextual relevance of it.
I did not say that they do not issue retractions. I said that they edit existing articles without noting that on their website or the article in question and that they do not provide a history for articles so that people can see the past versions of the same article.
You realize there is a difference between being misleading and lying, correct? I am accusing them of the latter. I am also accusing them of playing little psychological games with their readship by both making emotionally laden arguments to distort the argument and beg the question... while at the same time gaslighting the readership by ret-conning the discussion. This permits goal post moving and other assorted perversions of intellectual integrity.
To this you say "where did they lie"... that's not my argument. I could as easily respond with "Where is my jacket?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...